PASCO 2050 PASCO Moves transportation element corridor preservation table update
What the county recorded
This item is not from the published agenda
It is a stretch of the recording that this archive identified as a separate matter — a call to order, a recess, or something taken up that the agenda does not list. There is no official title, no staff recommendation and no disposition, because the county never recorded one. Everything below is inferred.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Apr 9, 2026
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 1h 6m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 94% of 301 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Chairman. Um my name is Hayet Mazilli, Planning Development and Economic Growth, and we are back again with Pasco twenty fifty workshop. Today's workshop is gonna be discussing the chapter Number three, which is PASCO Moves. Pasco Moves is the transportation element. This this chapter, uh, just like all the other chapter of the PASCO 2050 comprehensive plan, has been worked on by numerous stakeholders, the county attorney's
office and county departments, including the Planning Development Economics. Growth of course, the MPO, Go Pasco, and the Transportation Engineering Department. All of these departments had significant participation and contribution to the update of this chapter. So for today's session, we will be focusing specifically on Update to table 7-2, which is the corridor preservation table, and the associated transportation maps, including existing map
7-35, which is the transportation corridor preservation map. and existing map seven-thirty six, the Highway Vision Plan Map. And these materials were sent out to the Planning Commission in advance so that everyone had the opportunity to review the tables and of course the map updates prior to today's workshop. They are also available on our PASCO 2050 projects website. We will come back on April 16 to
walk you through the goals, objectives, and policies of this chapter. We have intentionally divided this chapter into two sessions. to make sure or to make the review more manageable and to ensure that the Planning Commission has adequate time to focus on the technical updates first before diving into the policy framework. Before we begin, I want to acknowledge Nick Huren, our Pasco County engineer, who has done the heavy
lifting on this portion of the chapter. He uh Nick. personally updated the entire cordial preservation table and the corresponding transportation maps, ensuring accuracy, consistency and alignment with both the conditions, the existing conditions on the ground right now and also the long term mobility plans and mobility needs. So Nick will walk us today through um the updates made to the corridor preservation table to the um and how these updates
translated onto the maps. And uh with that I'll uh keep Pasco moves on the move and I will hand it to Nick to walk us through all these changes.
All right, thank you. Thank you very much.
Welcome, Nick. Well good afternoon. That also means uh Nick Urett, County Engineer. That also means that I'm responsible for the mistakes that you will inevitably. Yeah, undoubtedly. Yeah. So just give Giving you a brief overview of the table update. We've got four different types of changes that we made on this slide. We looked at the number of travel lanes that we are ultimately identifying on a segment-by-segment basis, and we adem we amended those for consistency with the MPO
needs plan. That's the unconstrained, not the financial feasible or cost-affordable version, but the how much should we build if we We wanted to accommodate all the growth and all the travel that we could possibly envision in the future. And then we also wanted to ensure that we were updating the number of travel lanes to reflect that demand level. If there was any discrepancy between the needs plan and what we thought was necessary, we wanted to ensure that those facilities reflected the needed investments. Uh
we looked at right-of-way width, and generally speaking, and I don't know if you heard this even this past Tuesday at the Board of County Commissioners meeting, the conversation has been: let's make the right-of-way widths as compact as possible. We have generally established pretty wide corridors in Pasco County that allow for a significant amount of green space, and we're trying to make sure that we balance that. We allow land to remain in private. Private ownership for development wherever possible and to ensure that we've protected enough right-of-way to construct the
ultimate transportation facilities in the system that we need to let people move around. I do want to mention that while we are standardizing and right-sizing the corridor widths, we are not proposing typical section content in the comp plan. Meaning, I'm gonna tell you how wide these corridors are, but I'm not gonna Get into the detail of exactly what's going to be in those corridors as part of the comp plan update that will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners at a future point once the comp plan has been adopted. So they can say, yes, build roads
that look like this within the footprint that you have established in the comp plan. We did do some realignments, and I'll show you some examples of that on some succeeding slides to ensure that the alignment. Of roadways are compatible with development approvals and are constructible, essentially trying to minimize or eliminate environmental impacts wherever we could. And then we did delete some roads that are in the Complan map currently because they are not constructible and/or not necessary. So
that's kind of The big picture categories of of changes that we've made to both map and tables, and then some structural notes on the table. Previously, and in our currently adopted comp plan, we have a segment or a portion of the table that shows the state roads and a portion that shows the county roads. We did away with that, converted it to a column. So the column now says jurisdiction and identifies for each segment who is the responsible jurisdiction for that facility. We also removed a notes column from the existing table. Essentially, that was being used to
say, even though the table has content, don't pay attention to it, go look for a study somewhere else. And we said, let's not do that any longer. Let's let this table reflect the intended outcome for each of the segments in the comp plan. Some updates to the road names. We had a lot of placeholders that were established until development. Development came in and proposed names of particular segments. So we just updated the table name, table rather to reflect the road names that have been established. And then we're also going to propose a an
intersection footprint for a preferred approach that we would like to see roundabouts constructed. This also came up at our Board of County Commissioners meeting on Tuesday. We'd like to prefer roundabout construction where feasible, but if we don't do roundabouts, then we also want to identify the width of the road necessary to accommodate turnlanes and traffic signal apparatus if we go that route, the turn lane plus signal. And then last thing, we we added a couple of new roadways, and we are identifying the planned future. interchange
locations, any grade separations that would that would have a required footprint associated with them so that if development comes in along those areas, we can protect the land needed for those future interchanges. Here's an example of the table. I'm not going to go through all what did we end up with? 125 pages or so of table content. So I'm not going to go through the individual the individual table by uh page by page. But we did it. This is and I'm sorry. I'm highlighting State Road 54 that was transferred to Pasco County
as a result of an executed road jurisdiction transfer agreement between the state and the county. So that now has become Wesley Chapel Boulevard for these segments of road. The jurisdiction has been updated from state to county. And then we've also updated both the number of ultimate lanes. You can see a couple of segments there had shown an ultimate eight. And we said consistent with the MPO needs plan and the forecasted demand for the area, we can we can get by with a single. six lane road in that's in those two segments at the bottom, Curly to Zephyrhills, Zephyrhills to Meadow Point.
And then we reduced the right-of-way footprint to correspond with the number of travel lanes. So that's an example of the kind of changes that we made throughout the table. And now I'm going to touch on some of the map components. First one is the intersection footprint. And what I'm showing you here is a footnote in the right-of-way protection table that says we would like to build roundabouts whenever possible. And what I'm what we said in the footnote, and what I'm showing you graphically, is if we have a two-lane road connecting with another two-lane road,
what we essentially need is a 100-year-old.
In order to accommodate a two-lane roundabout, one circling lane. One in, one out on the approaches. If we have a bigger road, a two by four or a four by four lane road at an intersection, that that footprint increases to 250 feet. Because we want we now want to have two lanes circling the roundabout, we need the larger space to accommodate the radius associated with the turning movements of the larger vehicles going around together in the roundabout. If we don't need that, and
I I did this on purpose to show you kind of relative scale, if we don't do a roundabout, we can get by with really only about 150 feet on our biggest roads on each of the four approaches. because we're only going to need two left turn lanes. Three two or three through lanes, depending on whether it's a four or a six-lane road, and one right turn lane. And those lanes, along with the departure lanes, the bike facilities, and the multi-use pathways, only need about 150 feet. And the point I'm trying to make in this graphic
is the roundabouts at the intersection themselves will require additional right-of-way to be protected. We actually had this conversation also. On Tuesday, with the with respect to the Kenton Road Elam uh Road intersection, the question was: can we accommodate a roundabout at that intersection? The answer was we don't have the required 250 feet of diameter for a circular roundabout because we didn't have this policy in our comp plan that said please protect it. And so we didn't we didn't get the land for development
as it came in. So the approach that we're trying to to go down now is to ensure that we give ourselves the option of building the roundabout and express a preference for that where feasible on two and four lane roads. Six lane roads are always going to be turn lanes and signals.
I want to touch on some a a handful of map amendments to ensure that you capture the the sense of what we've done on the overall maps. So in this graphic, I'm showing you in northwest Pasco the addition of a new Vision Collector Road, Bolton Avenue, and that's this uh
Give it a sec. Uh uh I don't know if that's gonna work for me.
Uh
Ah. Okay, so we're saying Bolton Avenue from US nineteen all the way over here to Coyote is the proposed additional road, and that get that gives us a collector road network in the Denton, New York area. And we also recognize that the parallel road to US nineteen in this area, diagonal, is an unconstructible alignment. It creates all sorts of havoc when it when it comes to the intersections with cross. streets and the right-of-way acquisition as well as the value to the network as a on a regional scale is minimal.
So we're proposing to delete that road. Wanted to give you an example of that. That's a good good example of an addition and a deletion. Looking at the Suncoast Parkway area north of State Road 52 within the vicinity of Hudson Avenue, handful of changes that we're suggesting in this area. First one is Hudson Avenue constructing over the turnpike, or over the Suncoast Parkway, rather. as of minimal value on a regional scale because we have that existing connection to Soft Wind Lane that goes between Hudson
and uh Shady Hills and because it's very expensive and difficult to build a bridge over the Sun Coast Parkway as uh we're demonstrating with our work on the Rangeland Boulevard corridor. We're also suggesting the that Hayes Road, based on predicted future volumes, is going to be busy enough to warrant the a wider footprint and a four-lane investment, not just a two-lane road with turn lanes. That's reflective of development approvals in the area, and we're saying that that kind of capacity investment is needed. And again, these are
examples that illustrate the point of some other changes that have happened in other parts of the county as well. But I'm walking you through how we thought about the the analysis of these particular types of questions. And then on a bigger scale, we're we're suggesting the addition of an interchange at the Sun Coast Parkway and Caldwell Lane. Because essentially we have had conversations with the the Turnpike Enterprise, the folks who manage the Sun Coast Parkway, who said to us, Hudson Avenue might have been a good idea, but you didn't protect right-of-way
for ramps, and it's going to be expensive for the county to build, and then the turnpike will not have the the land necessary for the interchange ramps because we gave uh development approvals on the east side and allowed for construction. Of stuff where we would put the ramps. They said Shady Hills is no good because of the curvature of the road passing under the Sun Coast Parkway and again the lack of land associated with um or n necessary for the ramps. And so the third option on the table was Caldwell Lane, and we said we'll take it. This
is about halfway between 52 and County Line Road and would give us another app opportunity to access Both the the Shady Hills corridor and the northwest part of Pasco County from the Sun Coast Parkway. And then we're also suggesting that north-south road that is in the current comp plan between Shady Hills and Caldwell on the east side of the Sun Coast Parkway is not necessary or constructible. And so that that's an example of a facility that's coming out.
Moving over to the Connected City and Villages of Pasadena Hills, the green line on the left side of this map is the I 75 corridor. Okay, cool. The um The blue line is the State Road 52 corridor to give you some orientation. And what we're suggesting in this in this area is that we should realign roads to be cons to the to their constructible locations, the following four roads that are listed there. Murata slash Hartman, which is the portion north of County Road 52 that would give
a connection around the target distribution center. And then also the Curly Road Corridor, aligning it to be more compatible with and consistent with the constructible location in the vicinity of the Prospect Murata intersection. We're looking at the Kenton Road Corridor. This just came to you, I think, last month and was approved by the board just last just earlier this week for the development agreement to build Kenton Road on the light teal alignment. alignment shown here. And then lastly the north-south
road C, which is over on the eastern part of the villages of Pasadena Hills in the southeast or lower right corner of your map, realigning that at the Overpass Road intersection to reflect again a constructible alignment. In addition, on this same map, we're showing the yellow lines are existing county vision roads, primarily collectors, that are being removed because they are either unneeded and/or unbuildable. The two south of Kiefer Road are the area within the Southwest Florida Water Management
District property acquisition. They are being removed because it will both be difficult to construct roads through that area. Area, and because with the construction of Curley Road and the extension of Old Bridge and the widening of Hancart, we have adequate north-south capacity in that portion of the county, so we don't need those additional two roads. Same answer when it comes to the road just west of Hancart Road, south of State Road 52. That will still be constructed as a development access road, but it will not go all the way to prospect again. because
we don't need the north-south capacity and we can rely on some of the local facilities to support that area. So again, examples of of additions or modifications rather and removals in the eastern part of the county. Southeast part of the county, I have two items uh where we are realigning roads, golf links, uh coats, and then the southern, southeastern portion there, the State Road fifty-six alignment, what we're showing is a concept alignment. They're actually doing what they call a Alternative
Corridor Evaluation Study. They like to say it's an ACES study to figure out where they think that State Road 56 can be constructed east of US three oh one. Today it it roughly terminates at the three oh one intersection. There's a small local facility on the east side at the um Oh, what's the name of that? The the the vehicle shop there, the auction site. So there's an auction site on the east side. It terminates roughly in the auction site. Uh what DOT is trying to figure out is how can they get State Road 56
to go not just from US 301 east to State Road 39, Paul Buckman Highway, but all the way east to the US 98 corridor that connects down to Lakeland. That's because they're looking at it on a regional scale what I've done is I've shown you the portion of the of the corridor within Pasco County because I I wear blinders and I stop thinking about the world when I get to the county boundary. Uh and and likewise where we're when we're realigning State Road 56, we're also removing the existing yellow line in the comp plan, which is an unconstructible
location for that extension, uh in recognition that it was passing through wetlands and land that we've now allowed to become people's homes.
I mentioned that we are adding to the count plan the grade separations that are planned for the county. And so these are there are four being shown here. And I say four because this is the State Road 54 corridor here. And what I'm doing is I'm showing you the proposed grade separation at the US 41 interchange. And then also consistent with the MPO's long-range plan, I'm showing you the planned grade separation at the Collier Parkway intersection and
what the ramps at that location might look like. This is conceptual. At Collier. It's farther than conceptual, but it has not yet moved into full right-of-way acquisition at 41 because this is I'm essentially showing you the location of the ramps that the DOT has established as their preferred alternative for the overpass at 41. We're also suggesting a grade-separated interchange at I-75 and St. Joe Road in northeast Pasco County, which would be equidistant from the existing interchanges
at State Road 52 and Blanton Road and it would provide a direct connection into Dade City via St. Joe which is um which connects to Meridian and goes straight into the heart of downtown. It and we're also suggesting, as I mentioned earlier, the Shady Hills Caldwell Lane area, a proposed interchange with the Sun Coast Parkway. Now these are all, apart from the US 41 at 54, these are all conceptual in nature. They would require consent with uh consent of
the state for the portions of I-75 and/or the Sun Coast Parkway, but they do allow us to protect right of way for the future potential interchange that we've identified is needed in our transportation system.
What what's the cost share on that with um the state? In a situation like that?
So it it it depends. It quite heavily depends. If um it it's almost like A question of who goes first. When we went to the state and said we desperately want to open up the villages of Pasadena Hills, northern Wesley Chapel area for development, and we want Overpass Road to connect to I-75, they said, great idea, you pay for it. And we paid 100% of the cost of that interchange. They come to us and say,
hey, County, we are desperately looking for ways to relieve the I-75 State Road 52 congestion, and we have done all we can at the ramp terminals. Is there any way we could construct with your corridor on St. Joe Road that would give us another way for people to y to access the interstate without having to go to State Road 52? If they come to us, then they pay. So It it's it it really does significantly depend.
And and to revisit the since we're on this slide, the interchange at um It's proposed at Caldwell as opposed to the existing overpass over Shady Hills Road. I understand there's not a lot of land there, but there is an overpass there, whereas with uh Caldwell you'd have to build something from scratch. So what Can you talk a little bit more about the logic be behind
Yeah, let me jump back to that slide and um
One one point of clarification, Caldwell actually does have a bridge over the Sun Coast Parkway today.
Okay.
So it it's a two-lane bridge. It's not an adequate bridge for an interchange to connect to, but but there's an existing con structure over the Sun Coast. So that it it's sort of getting your foot in the door, if you will, with respect to the ability to go over the Sun Coast and have the landing space on Yeah.
I'm gonna paraphrase, but essentially we we didn't protect land at Hudson Avenue for the extension, the the yellow line, and the turnpike said we didn't protect land and the curvature of the road under the Sun uh Shady Hills Boulevard, Shady Hills Road rather, under the Sun Coast Parkway makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to construct an interchange on Shady Hills itself. Okay. And so our thought was we'd really like to support industrial development in this area. It's a targeted
employment center for northwest Pasco County. We want the regional connectivity that an interchange provides. If you have to go a half mile, quarter mile north on Shady Hills to get to Caldwell and make a right turn and get right on the uh the Suncoast Parkway in that way. It provides most of the connectivity value and has the benefit of being connected. Instructible.
And I I I'm gonna say interchanges in general, like this one is a good example, these are placeholders that suggest in in a desired future vision. If that vision were to change, if we were to do a feasibility study and say, you know what, you really can build it at Shady Hills and here's how, we we could we could satisfy the intent of the comprehensive plan identifying a connection in this vicinity without formally going through an amendment process and saying, let's move it from here to here
to there. I I think this is more more than anything, this is intent this is demonstrating a desire to connect to the ko to their limited access facility, not specifying the precise way in which it will connect.
So Nick, where you identified those future interchanges and kind of reser reservations of the property, et cetera. How I mean if somebody comes in and owns that property and wants to develop, how do they do they follow along the same parameters and Criteria that's followed now.
They do. And and I'll use the um And and probably the Saint the I-75 at St. Joe is the best example. Right. Should we have an application that receives favorable consideration for development on the quadrants of that intersection, what we'd like to be able to say to that applicant is, I'm glad to see that you want to make meaningful use of your property. Please set aside the this amount of land for the ramp uh connections and potentially the drainage. facilities associated with those ramp connections so that we can protect
our ability to build a future interchange in this area.
Wow. So how is that area identified though? I mean like if it if I'm if I'm if I have a piece of property that's adjacent to a roadway corridor and it says one hundred and twenty four feet, I can easily do the math, but how how does the property owner know do they go meet with you individually in th those specific areas?
Well, the so the center lines that are drawn on the on the map in general are the approximate locations where we think roads either whether either where they already exist or where we think they will likely exist. And then we identify in the in the um table a width as well. And the these facilities have an eighty foot width attached to them, suggesting that that would be enough for a two lane off and on ramp with a little bit wide a a little bit more of a footprint for an additional turn lane at the intersection when it connects with the crossing roadway.
Nick. Question. This goes to the deletions from the map and ties a little bit into Jamie's question. So what happens when the next county engineer comes in here? And decides Uh well first off that interchange is in the northeast rural area and the politics of building an interchange in that area probably aren't Gonna will blow your way, at least for now. And
now you've exacted that land from whatever developer there was. And then you decide you don't want to build it. And I'm looking at, I'm thinking about Diagonal Road over on 19. Okay, so now we've we've been exacting land from those property owners. For the last twenty years.
along that corridor and now we say, Well now we're not gonna build it. Are we giving that land back to those people?
Are we paying them for the lost use of their land that we took and decided now we're not gonna use this? Well we
are required to give them mobility fee credits. If they ask for 'em we have to give them mobility credits for the land.
Are you gonna be sending notices out to all these people?
I mean I went and looked at your I appreciate the idea of narrow corridors. And I think whoever created the last table, I wasn't involved in that. Got a little greedy.
But now there are people who've had their land exacted from them. for roads that we have zero intention to build. and they've lost the use and the rights to that property.
What do we propose to do about that?
So 'cause you get up here and talk about it, we're protecting it. It's not your land. It's the property owner's land, and we also have a property rights element in the comprehensive plan, too.
I agree.
And don't get me wrong. I understand the need to plan for future transportation. But We can't do this. Willy nilly, well, I got a vision that we're gonna do this and the next guy comes in and his vision is different. And now it's cost people. It's cost people their property.
I had I was looking at Darlington Road this morning before I came in and I saw that the corridor's going from eighty to sixty. And I said, Huh. Let me go look and see how many people had to give forty feet from the center line along Darlington Road. What are we doing about those people? There's no intention to widen Darlington Road.
So now the county and I I've got a project right now I'm working on that's finishing up. It's on Trouble Creek Road.
It's the only parcel that's had to give right away along Trouble Creek Road. It's been in the County's comprehensive plan now for twenty years to have eighty feet of right away along Trouble Creek Road for what? When are we widening this? What's the impetus to widen it? There is no impetus to widen it. But yet we've taken these people's property and denied them the use of that property. Well I think we need to think hard about
How we Protect lands for transportation. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we shouldn't plan. That's what this whole exercise is about. But we need to be very careful about what we're doing with other people's property. And to that same end, I'm looking down at Mr Williams at the school board. What if the school board decides to use this same exact tool to plan for schools? Well, you know, I think five years from now I'm going to need a school over
there, and I'm going to need a school over there, and I'm going to need a school over there. So let's just put a map or a table in the comp plan and if somebody comes in. Well, we'll just exact that land from 'em. For a school. But you guys don't do that, do you?
Well, they'd have to give credits or cash for that land too.
No, we don't do that. And the real but the reality is, is now the legislature's looking at some land that we have bought. For the future. And they're saying, Oh, we think the school board has too much land. you guys are gonna ha you know, there's been legislation. Fortunately it hasn't passed.
You didn't say I agreed with that either.
No, I agree. I know you don't. But I mean there is legislation that floated around but fortunately didn't pass about hey, you need to offer it up to charter schools or affordable housing or whatever, but you know Again, there is a balance. And I thought the same thing, John. I'm thinking I'm looking at some roads where there's empty land and they're waiting on additional lanes and I'm thinking what happens when that doesn't get built?
I think there does need some methodology. And same
thing, I'm looking at some of these realignments. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the realignments are not without merit or that it doesn't make sense to realign or that the previous alignment made any sense. I'm just thinking about what about the people that came in here for an MPUD and They got hit with, well, we've got this vision road map over here and you need to give this right of way. cut your development.
Bisects your development, and now we've decided to realign the road and we're not actually going to use that land.
So I think any first of all Any one of those developers could come in and say, you've now changed it, we want to develop that piece now. And we would let them. Yeah. If they can. I mean I realized that's the right-of-way. If they can. The problem is
you took the
opportunity from them. I understand that John. I mean but mistak There's yes. Did j did John Gallagher and Jim Whitman make a lot of mistakes? Yes. I mean they they probably took more land than they needed to.
I mean, but what do you want me to do? Do you want me to bring them in here and you can shoot them? I don't know what you want me to do. No, I'm
not. What I'm
thinking of
mechanism
to be able to deal with.
Well If I could. I I agree with what you're saying, but there are mechanisms to address every one of the many hypothetical situations that you identified. Okay, so I'm asking. So I don't know which one you would like me to speak to first. You start with a shooting, I guess.
Well no, I'm not looking to I actually like Mr Gallagher and there are some days I wish he was back here. Unfortunately we can't bring Mr. Woodman back.
So to your point. I I I can take a shot and then you can tell me what I've done.
The next county engineer may come in and say this isn't feasible. There's one map there's one line I see on this map that I think may not be feasible. I'm gonna ask about that one after, but Go ahead.
So generally speaking, i if I'm changing an alignment, it's because we have not granted a development approval in that area and the line that we would have to exact from someone is not constructible. Otherwise if I'm changing an alignment. Because it's adjacent to or within an approved development, it's because we actually approved a different line through the administrative process of submittal of an application through PDE and granting of approval through the Board of County Commissioners
for rezoning or land use change. They were allowed to change the line because it was more advantageous to them to put it where they requested and not where our comp plan showed it. And we and we granted that request, and now I have to amend the alignment adjacent to that approval so that I can provide continuity. If you ever, if you want an example of that, look at the Old Woods Avenue Corridor in southeastern Pasco. We have essentially granted an approval here and an approval here. And they don't m they
don't meet in the middle. So I have to figure out how to navigate the S curve on the unapproved the the parcel that has not yet been entitled. Same answer with respect to Wells Road in central Pasco County. We have approval to the north along um Oh this is I I said Wells, it's Wilson Road. Uh we have an approval to the north along Lace Lake Patience and we have an approval to the south where uh Wilson hits State Road 54 and they don't match. And our job is to figure out how to make them match in the unentitled parcels in the middle. So if I'm doing an alignment
shift, it's not Not because I'm trying to undo an approval, it's because I'm trying to reflect and be consistent with approvals already rendered by the County Commission. Generally speaking, if for some reason someone comes in and says, hey, you exacted land from me and I would like to build on it now because you've identified I've identified a different way to provide that or your comp plan through this amendment process has has identified a different way to accomplish that objective.
It's not that I want to build on it now, it's that back when I wanted to build on it and I wanted a hundred thousand square foot building and I was forced to build a sixty thousand square foot building 'cause you made me give this right of way that you never needed.
And I I'm gonna submit to you without knowing the details that you may be overstating some of the s severity of the hypotheticals. If there are examples that you would like me to investigate, I would be happy to do so.
I probably could show you lots of conceptual
And and frankly, to the point of and we generally have responded favorably. I know because I signed most of those alternative standard requests to reduce the right-of-way putting. But all do reach. We respond favorably to those questions. In
my tenure on is just because we're not gonna use our right-of-way for road widening does not mean we don't need the right-of-way. I mean I don't know if you've been to our board meetings lately about how many times we've had commissioners ask us to widen paths and sidewalks and have right-of-way for utilities and landscaping. I mean d we we make use of that right-of-way for purposes other than road pavement. So I wouldn't just assume that
it's not going to be used.
Yeah, but if it's a street that didn't exist before that is now, you know, a vision road, for instance the US nineteen thing. You know, and and I get I guess to John's point, you know, it's this stuff that we don't know about. So if it's a piece of property that maybe someone could have sold to a developer or someone could have developed um that they that that that window expired and nothing ever happened on that property. It's different from You know, hey we've already built on it and now we want to
add to it or hey it's still in planning and we're going to utilize now
to answer your question, if it truly is not usable by the county anymore and somebody wants it back to add more parking Add more landscaping, yes we would try to find a way to give it back to them. I can't promise you that it's gonna be used to be able to used for to add more square footage, but maybe they could add more parking to for their building. Maybe they could add more landscaping, maybe they could add something put it to some usable purpose. I don't but that's something we'd have to look at on a case by case basis.
Yeah, I think he's speaking to the damage that's already been done.
But I again I can't if you unless you want to bring Mr. Gallagher back in here and shoot him, I don't know what you want me to do. I mean
Mr. Gallagher wasn't king of Pasco County. He had to have a board of county commissioners that
But but but I know who I know who I know who instructed Mr. Winman to come up with those cross sections. It was Mr. Gallagher.
Well I don't know that we can do anything about what we've done in the past. I mean all we can do I think I think this is a move in personally I think this is a move in the right direction to right size the right-of-way because it seems like
that's
where we're headed.
But it but if the question is are we willing to give the right-way back so is they c does if if it's truly not needed anymore. And again, I think Nick's right, we don't know, it's a case-by-case thing we'd have to look at to see, do we truly not need it anymore? Yes, we could look to give it back and maybe they could use it to add some more parking or landscaping or something some usable purpose for that business. But they'd have they'd have to come to us and say, hey, we we'd like the right-way
back now.
Let me ask you this question. Does Hillsboro County have corridor tables that require dedication?
Does Penellus have them? Does Citrus have them or Hernando have them?
I don't have an exhaustive awareness of all sixty seven counties, but all the ones that I've worked in have them.
Okay.
Because especially in fast growing areas, if you don't know where you want your road network to be, you won't have a road network.
Well no, I believe in visioning roads and an un in and designing or you know, contemplating a future roadway network.
What I don't believe is exacting people's land before we have
plans.
We're not the only county that does it does it, otherwise this legislature would not have imposed legislation requiring us to give credits when we do it. There's a reason the state legislature came in and mandated that we give credits.
And I mean exact right- I really do want the Commission to understand that the administrative experience we've had is not the experience that Commissioner Moody is describing. We're we're not lashing a whip over developers saying, give us land whether or not you like the location. It's what the Complan says. We're incredibly flexible. When people come in and say, The comp plan shows a road right through the middle of my property, can I move it to the edge so that I can amass the developable area? We are absolutely accommodating to be a good idea.
I'm not suggesting that you aren't. But you you I've been here. I've got a lot longer history here than you, and I have seen that whip cracked over these people and that land exacted from those people. And now I'm seeing it. Undone. And don't get me wrong, I actually support what you're doing. But I question the wisdom of a process where this can happen to somebody. That's all I'm saying.
And I I just want the commission to understand that we view development as a partnership. We're all trying to com construct a regional transportation network. And if they're building pieces of it and we're building pieces of it, we're pursuing the same objective ultimately which is to create a thriving community where people want to live, move and play. We're we're here for the good of our community, trying to figure out how to do this together.
Nick, have you finished your additions and deletions or no? I believe
Would you show the one that goes from Caldwell to Saint Joe?
We need to talk about one more slide. Yep, that that's the one. Um so We need to talk about this slide. So, brief background to this: this is a proposal to add two roadway segments: Caldwell Lane from the Sun Coast Parkway to US 41, and Bowman from US 41 to Bellamy to connect across from Johnston. This is essentially a request that we heard when we presented when we did our mobility fee
workshop and really in s it throughout several discussions with board members regarding development along the State Road fifty two corridor saying why don't we have an east west corridor in Pasco County that runs between Forty One and Bellamy north of State Road fifty two? So this is the proposed location of that two-segment corridor that would give continuity from 41 to the Sun Coast to support and and really have Value
to the potential Sun Coast interchange at Caldwell, and it would allow for a connection from US 41 to Bellamy. If you wonder why it has the weird kink in the middle, it's because the road essentially follows the northern boundary of the Tampa Bay water parcels within that area.
This is
and this is dis this is different from the version that is in the map. in your packet because of conversations that have continued to occur in the direction of this alignment. And so that was
the name of that road up here where it intersects?
The uh if you're talking about this teal road between 41 and uh Bellamy, it intersects to the west with Bowman at US 41, and it intersects to the east at Bellamy and Johnston.
In Johnston, okay. So this so the map I'm sorry map moves three that I'm looking at because I looked at that and said what the heck is this road? You're saying this supersedes
This supersedes that. So the reason you couldn't bring Colville Street across is because that's
Pinellas
County's Welfare.
And I assume Tampe Water had concerns with that.
It can't can't be mitigated.
We um We received concerns from our representatives on the Tampa Bay Water Board.
They so we have not approached the Tampa Bay Water staff because we did not have the support of our delegation on the regional water board.
to run to run the quarter as shown on your map, which is why this map differs from the one in your backup material.
So does this run through some someone's ranch or something?
It runs on the north side of the water parcel along primarily existing farm roads, but it would encumber portions of existing ranches.
I don't know this area well enough, Nick and I I'm sure you probably looked at this, but is that not a road just south and west of that kink?
It's a um it's an old
farm. It's an old farm route.
Yeah. And it i if I if I were to turn on the um The the natural so you're talking about this area right there? Right in there,
yeah.
Well, up north of that, yeah. And if I were to turn on the the natural features layer, you would see that this is all e everything to the south is pretty wet. difficult to construct through difficult to mitigate for um not impossible I mean we built Ridge Road over to the Sun Coast Parkway. So it's not impossible but it did not
The alignment in your backup material was uh this would be essentially planting a seed that someone else would get to water and watch it grow. So it wouldn't happen in my own.
In light of this discussion, Nick
What the road that Now that you've sort of moved this road further north.
Is there is that Bowman that goes across?
That is.
Why not have your interchange at Bowman instead of Caldwell then with the Sun Closed?
It it's too close to the County Line Road interchange, which is at the top of the map. It w it would never get approval. And it would have minimal value because of its proximity to the county line road interchange.
That's why the road from Caldwell across to Saint Joe would be a lot more valuable, even though it's through more wetland and the Tampa Bay water. 'Cause it's somewhat more equidistant between State Route fifty two and county line.
And that funky curve you have that's
kind of it's essentially following the northeast corner of the Tampa Bay waterland. And trying to get get down to the horiz uh to the latitude, if you will, of Johnston in order to go due east from the Tampa Bay water parcel.
Yeah, that's not ideal either if just from a traffic flow perspective. I I'm
just I I'm skeptical that somebody's gonna drive on a controlled access road that's got those kind of curves.
Well, again, the count plan is conceptual. We could we could straighten quite a bit with just a I I could make it into a sweeping S curve. Then back to the point. To the point of property acquisition. Okay, now I give
you this right away and oh well yeah, this is not really feasible and we just need to bring it straight across.
That but you're right. If I'm trying to make this a relative uh even a moderate speed uh controlled access facility, I'm counting on some significant super elevation with the curves that I'm showing.
Well with i in in mixed defense though if somebody came in with development in that area, I I'm pretty sure he would ask somebody to look at the feasibility and the alignment of that road coming through there and that may be a case where they suggest an alternative alignment that he says, Yeah, that makes more sense.
Of course you have to stay in your position, you know. Can't quit.
I I feel like if it's not in alignment with Caldwell to Saint Joe through the original
Connection From four if let's just say you didn't have the call well interchange at all. Is there a merit to having a connection from forty one to I seventy five.
The controlled access connection from forty one to High seventy five.
I'm asking, I
don't know. I I'm not sure I followed your question.
Let's just say that the road stopped at forty one. Like it didn't well I guess it doesn't 'cause it's I mean or it's 'cause it is Boeman. But let's say it never it
Say the you remove the call part of this from the map.
Does the road still have merit, is what I'm asking.
I I think yes. And and I I think in part because you you've got milepost just east of the Sun Coast Parkway that gets you from Bowman um up to County Line Road and that gives you a regional connectivity. It it becomes a a meaningful way to move east to west if you're in western Hernando County or or the Shady Hills Road Corridor. sort of northern and west of the Sun Coast Parkway in Pasco County, it gives you a way to get to eastern
and southeastern Pasco County without having to rely on State Road fifty two. I I think the Caldwell Lane connection has its own set of significant obstacles to be overcome. It is running through the eco corridor and it and then it there's a large resident a large lot residential community on the west side of 41. that we would need to find a way to traverse with as m little impact as possible. Uh the the point of the Caldwell connection to forty one
is we we have if We have seen development applications and and seen the board grant development approvals to projects along the forty one corridor that would not be able to avail themselves of any investments in Shady Hills or access to the Sun Coast Parkway if that connection didn't occur.
They they would they would be forced to rely on the State Road fifty two, US forty one corridor, which is the the segments of road that this concept is seeking to relieve.
So you're just trying to get all that development another connection to the Sun Coast? Yeah.
While you're thinking, I just want to say I appreciate this discussion. Yeah.
Yeah
I mean I my only concern with it Nick is that I just don't It just seems odd to me to show a controlled access roadway with that kind of curvature.
Uh-huh.
I I don't it just doesn't seem like it passes the straight face tests.
I can fix the curve if John won't get too mad at at me.
I understand that you're trying to follow the boundaries.
Well, I understand you're trying to follow the boundaries of Tampe Waters land, but it seems to me that if you're now north of their land
As long as you're now north of their lane, you might as well just make do an alignment to make sense.
I could cut some corners, both on Tampa Bay Water and on the private parcels to the east of the Tampa Bay water parcels. How would it
affect Tampa Bay water in a negative way? I mean unless there's a well in the corner of that parcel, which I doubt there is, it's right? It should.
Yeah.
So the the premise is that the investment in of a in the investment in a transportation quarter of any magnitude in an area that's serving as a well field has the potential to introduce contaminants to the well.
Mm-hmm.
I mean I d the uh the hydrology is not you know, there there's a lot of layers between where that well is drawing from and where the contaminants would start. So they have to, you know, you got a long penetration to get down to the point where the well is pulling. Run all the drainage
to the north
side. And and that's and there are uh I mean, you know, to Commissioner Yeah Boy, I'm gonna mispronounce your last name. Ponlets. To his point, can we mitigate for the adverse potentially adverse impact? Yes. D will everyone agree that the mitigation is sufficient? Never. Well, yeah.
And
you're gonna get never, you know.
I think we have the we have this almost an identical issue not iden not identical, but we have a similar issue with the potential extension of Ridge to
The overpass interchange because there's a huge well field that's Through the middle of that area too, which would be a nice connection to make. To get 'cause Ridge sort of just stops at Conerton. Right. And it'd be nice to be able to have it extend from Conerton to the new interchange at Overpass Road. But there's a giant well field there.
Same
problem? Similar. The the solution in this case is to go north of the well field. That's why the line is where it is. We don't have that option with the Ridge Road extension because we can't build a meaningful connection south of 52 and north of the well field.
Go over the well field, right?
Well, it that that deals with the you know, how do you mitigate for it? Well if you ever driven I ten through Louisiana, you can build an elevated limited ac controlled access facility. It's not cheap. And and it does not necessarily guarantee that contaminants that are introduced to the environment along the core are captured and disposed of without entering the sub The area below the road.
Well, the original proposal was from Caldwell straight across the S St. Joe, which did go through a lot of traverses a lot of wetland there, obviously. But is there a possibility to kind of split the difference and jog a little bit north with that? Still come from Caldwell across the Saint Joe, but go a little further north?
The I I think the problem I have is that Oh, wrong button.
That that is a problem. Oh okay. Here we are.
So the problem I have is that everything to the south in this area is all controlled by Tampa Bay Water.
Right.
So I don't really I anything I do to go due east, even if I try to get north quickly, it will traverse portions of the Tampa Bay water well field.
Yeah, but I mean again as long as it's not going over a well. Well that's that's
the line that I started with in the map.
Yeah.
N This is the little this is the line I've been asked to present today.
Yeah, 'cause you can get o you can still get above those wetlands. 'Cause it just makes m so much more sense because of the you know, the the p the proposed interchange there at Sun Coast and then the interchange that already exists at Saint Joe. At seventy five.
Those were all the points that I articulated when I was being asked to present this what it's at.
Question. So you say you're following the boundary along that curve. Why not just Extend. whatever road this is Bowman to the east a little bit more and el eliminate one of the curves.
Yeah, I no I think uh to the extent that the the double hitch S curve is the obstacle, we can address that.
And are we in a wetland where we're making this curve back to the east?
We are not. This area is is upland.
Where's the old Bay Road uh association with Work Connects up there?
I'm gonna need somebody with more history than my three years to answer that question. Mayhead Road. Yeah, a little
bit. North. It's a little north of that.
So Nick, I let me ask you, 'cause
The whole this this entire conversation is premised on a comment. Made it the board meaning that fifty two b with all the development that's occurring that fifty two is likely to fail. Is that the right-of-way?
Premise accurate? I mean, I may assume we're doing all this because we're trying to find a solution, like a a parallel reliever to fifty two. Sure. So And the
There's nothing happening in Hernando with County Line that's going to solve that problem and so we need to come up with something Sort of in between It will be a little bit more.
Do you agree with that premise?
I I need to give a few points in response. Uh point number one, there there is an MPO, there there the Tampa Bay regional planning model, rather. So not just the MPO for Pasco, but the regional planning model predicts a significantly high number of trips on State Road 52 west of I-75. Significantly high, like 90,000. daily trips based on d anticipated development and um the trap trip trip making characteristics of that land use
pattern. That's a big number that a six-lane road cannot accommodate. That that being said Um the regional planning model does not seem to accurately represent the roadways on the north of what I've labeled as Collier Parkway on the south side of 52. So the the Roads that are proposed to be constructed north of State Road 52 between the Collier Parkway Bellamy Brothers area. The Regional Planning Model Network
does not seem to have incorporated those links. So an update to the model that incorporates those links might show less trips on State Road 52. There is also a question regarding the entitlement assumptions: how many homes. Were proposed to be built in the model north of 52 that we have not run to ground. They may be overstating the number of houses in that area north of 52, that is also contributing to a very high forecast. So point number one, maybe
the network is inaccurate. Point number two, maybe the predicted number of houses is inaccurate. And then point number three, I'm going to say the DOT is currently performing a an anal a feasibility study of the extension of what's called Ayers Road in Hernando County, which will connect from County County. County Line Road at Suncoast east to some point along the I-75 corridor with the Blanton Iola corridor being a potential eastern terminus. So there is there is
a study for an additional east-west connector road underway that is primarily within Hernando County. So is you you you asked is this is this absolutely needed and is it the only way to address the need? So my first two points say it it is predicted to be needed with some investigation to be done. And my third point is it may not be the only way to address Predicted future east west travel, but it is a way to address
the east-west travel that is within Pasco County and therefore within our control, not dependent on adjacent jurisdictions.
And that really gives even more of a reason to try to move this south from what you have here because of the potential Ayers Road connection just to the north.
the the other thing that we um that's important with this whole thing is hurricane evacuation routes. You know, we've been especially as you continue to develop out the Hudson area and Shady Hills and all of that, you know, that's that's gonna become more and more needed as well. It's it's been needed, you know, already. We've seen that with some of the hurricane evacuations we've had recently, but
That's another important reason for this.
Yeah, I mean I think it's definitely needed,
sure. You're making all of my points. I love it.
Very good.
Are we doing it just like you wanted you told us to? Again,
I appreciate your engagement and I I I think you're you're wrestling with the trade offs that I wrestle with myself.
Right. Question. What are we what are we doing if any? And I'm not saying that we have to. This is the year twenty twenty six and we're now looking out to the year twenty fifty and beyond.
And we're planning our transportation around
Turn of the century. And I'm not talking about the twenty f 20th to the 21st. I'm talking about the 19th to the 20th century transportation modes.
We're in a world where We're now ready to put into commercial use air taxis. And the like. Are we doing any planning or thinking about Other modes.
Other than just roads?
Well and has public transport fit into this as well? I mean, is that part of this section of the Pasco Move sec section? Talking about
That so I I've been asked to present just the roadway corridors. There are goals, objectives and policies addressing mass transit investment as part of the MOOCs corridor, or MOOCs chapter rather.
Okay. So who's planning those things?
Hi, you wanna come back up?
Hi, it's Ms. Dilly, Planning Development, Economic Growth. So on four sixteen we'll come back with those policies to discuss them a little bit further as far as who's planning the policies for the transit. Is that what you asked, Mr. Moody?
Yeah.
We're all played in, including uh the M PO and uh Yeah. Yeah, Go Pasco, exactly.
Okay. But I will tell you that even in the most urban areas of Tampa
The modal splits, like the diversions that we get for mass transit, are not significant. Yeah, I I know. I mean even you took the I mean, unless you get to like Ur New York City level of mass transit, you're not gonna get significant diversions off of the roadways.
Yeah. I'm not suggesting Mr. Moody's talking about here that's a whole nother
different mood.
Yeah, that
is what I'm talking about. I'm I'm no, I'm not talking about buses. I'm tired of sitting behind empty buses and passing empty buses. that are sp blowing diesel smoke in my face all the way home with no people on them.
And I actually think that's a dumb idea. But you know, I'm looking towards the future. What what are we looking at along those lines? If any, maybe we're not. I don't I don't know. I'm just asking the question.
Yeah.
Human sized drones. It's basically what those air taxis are.
At the consumer electronic show this year, they had a human drone that you could buy for less than forty thousand dollars that doesn't require a pilot's license. Right. Okay, that's pretty attractive proposition. Because right now I can't even buy a car for forty thousand dollars. But I can buy a fly-on one for less. I'd think about that.
Well happens when you have twenty thousand of them in the air at the same time. But that that's why
exactly why I'm asking the question, Chris. That's why I'm asking the question. That's why we have AI. Well somebody needs to be thinking about these
things. Yeah. Yeah. When somebody gets too into a midair collision over my house. What?
I I can can't tell you the number of people that laughed at me in nineteen eighty two when I got my first eight K computer.
Mm-hmm.
Why was I wasting money on a stupid technology like that? Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
Okay, is there anything else? Well the logical thing would be if you are gonna allow those to still confine them to your roadways, just make them higher. You know, it just creates
I don't claim to be an expert in air traffic control. I don't know whether that's logical or not.
Geoffense or something.
I'm sure the people at the FAA will have something to say about it.
Okay, hi. What do we have now?
Uh so this concludes our discussion of Pasco moves, or at least this portion of Pasco moves. Do you have any questions about the maps that were included in the
package? Well, so clearly this map moves three is going to be revised.
Yes.
Is that the only
Yeah, that's the only so we will just change it to um to reflect the new reality. alignment or the the no alignment.
Well assuming that's what's ultimately decided on, 'cause I think we've well raised our concerns as a planning commission. I'll just
say there's nobody in here today that
is gonna be happier that that map is gonna get changed because literally just before this workshop started I said, Whoa whoa whoa whoa what are we doing? Who drew that line?
Okay.
I'm happy to to see that that's moved.
That's good. Okay. All right. So with that, that's the end of uh Pasco Booth's uh workshop. We will come back on four sixteen to keep things moving.
Okay.
Thank you so much for your engagement and for the feedback and uh we'll see you on four sixteen. Thank you. Thank you.
Okay. I have just real quick, is that stuff for next week? 'Cause that's just next week. That's next Thursday, right? So is that stuff coming out like tomorrow?
I will send that out tomorrow or tonight.
Okay.
Give me something to do in between the commercials and the masters.
Very good.